Chait wrote an article months back where he bragged about how much he hated President Bush, and about how that hatred was normal and healthy. He'd sooner nuke the red states than actually visit one of them.
ratmedia droppings.
Boy, this argument is a stretch to say the least. Oh well, as long as the Dems keep thinking up reason why Republicans won't succeed, the less time they spend looking in the mirror and trying to change their own party.
Yes, just let the far-left fools at the Left Angeles Times keep raving their fabricated scenarios...it will make for a quicker death for them.
More liberal tripe.
The rest of the article's not there, but I think where he's going with this is that any majority party is really just a coalition with groups that are often at odds with each other. Chait's wrong about the need for providing services to your constituency to get them to vote for you. If anything, the GOP majority wants just the opposite! But what do you expect from a liberal from LA?
Anyway, the only danger I see for the GOP in the next couple of decades is the fact that, like the old Democrat majority of the 60s, the GOP contains two widely disparate groups on social issues. There are some Republicans who are extremely culturally conservative (Santorum), others who are libertarian (Specter), and others who just don't care about social issues (McCain). Now that we're in power, whatever one of those groups does is going to PO the other two with regard to social issues. The Democrats have it much easier because almost every single Democrat is pro-abortion. You have to look under rocks to find a pro-life Democrat! But Bush wouldn't have won without moderate Republicans as well as conservatives. The social issues chasm in the GOP is probably our party's greatest danger to maintaining our majority.
If they stay living in their insane delusional world, they can never win an election again, NEVER AGAIN.
Why go on reading after a line like that? It confirms the impression that the New Republic is written by children. If he knew that we know that, he might have gone for a little more gravitas.
It's hard to go wrong predicting that the party on top will be on the bottom sometime. Every governing party oversteps itself. But timing -- knowing when a group is still on the upswing and when the decline has begun -- is everything.
Eventually Republicans will lose the White House. And at some point Democrats will control Congress again. But it's worth noting that with 51% Bush isn't likely to be tempted into the kind of hubris that destroyed Johnson or Nixon. More likely his second term will resemble Eisenhower's or Reagan's, perhaps a holding pattern, but not a failure.
To be sure, Bush is younger and more ambitious than Reagan or Eisenhower, and he will attempt more, but I don't think he'll stumble in the way that Nixon or Johnson did. At least, he seems able to step back a bit from the Washington scene and his own ambitions and see things in perspective.